Scism v. Holland

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Scism v. Holland

183 S.E.2d 282, 12 N.C. App. 405, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1374

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 15, 1971

DocketNo. 7121SC485

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 183 S.E.2d 282 (Scism v. Holland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scism v. Holland, 183 S.E.2d 282, 12 N.C. App. 405, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1374 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that the trial judge failed to correctly instruct the jury on the burden of proof. No reason is stated and no authority is cited to support this assignment of error and, under the rules of this Court, it will be taken as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The remainder of the plaintiff’s assignments of error all relate to the court’s instructions on the issue of contributory negligence which was not reached by the jury. The exceptions to the charge on this issue are, therefore, moot. Williams v. Cody, 236 N.C. 425, 72 S.E. 2d 867; Williams v. Stores Co., Inc., 209 N.C. 591, 184 S.E. 496. We have, however, reviewed the entire charge of the able trial judge and no prejudicial error appears therein.

To answer the first issue the jury had to consider whether negligence of the defendants proximately caused the collision and, if so, whether the plaintiff was injured as a result of the collision. The evidence in this case was such that the jury may well not have been satisfied by the evidence and the greater weight thereof that either occurred. Dotson v. Chemical Corp., 278 N.C. 677, 180 S.E. 2d 859.

No error.

Judges Brock and Graham concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that the trial judge failed to correctly instruct the jury on the burden of proof. No reason is stated and no authority is cited to support this assignment of error and, under the rules of this Court, it will be taken as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The remainder of the plaintiff’s assignments of error all relate to the court’s instructions on the issue of contributory negligence which was not reached by the jury. The exceptions to the charge on this issue are, therefore, moot. Williams v. Cody, 236 N.C. 425, 72 S.E. 2d 867; Williams v. Stores Co., Inc., 209 N.C. 591, 184 S.E. 496. We have, however, reviewed the entire charge of the able trial judge and no prejudicial error appears therein.

To answer the first issue the jury had to consider whether negligence of the defendants proximately caused the collision and, if so, whether the plaintiff was injured as a result of the collision. The evidence in this case was such that the jury may well not have been satisfied by the evidence and the greater weight thereof that either occurred. Dotson v. Chemical Corp., 278 N.C. 677, 180 S.E. 2d 859.

No error.

Judges Brock and Graham concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 S.E.2d 282, 12 N.C. App. 405, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scism-v-holland-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack